Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-15
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synobses OF Decisions Rendered afE he
Pre- sent Tyler Sitting or the
Texas Higher Courts.
Supreme Court and Court OF Appeals
Rulings-De cisiOns In some Long
Pending Cases.
Supreme Court.

TYLER. TEX, Nov. 1l.-GrrlsOn CT a..
VS.. John S. Coffee; appeal from Hopkins.
Suit by appellee to recover from appel
lants several lots in the city of Sulphur
Springs, In this case the evidence is con-
nfcting. While this court will not usu-
ally reverse where the evidence is con-
fiicting, having been passed upon in the
court below by jlry, yet where 1t is ap-
parent that the verdict and Judgment are
not supported by the evidence we cannot
allow the Judgment to stand. In this case
the burden f proof WAS upon the appellee
and the evidence offered was otsufncient
to show with reasonable certainty the
true locality of the land. The record be-
fore as renders it most probable that the
evidence accessible and necesseryito show
the locality of the land In controversy was
not brought forward. For this want Of
sufficient proof to show that the title to
the land described in the petition passed
to appellee, through the deeds under
which he claims, the judgme Mt can not
stand. Reversed and Temanded. Stay
ton, J.
Blsine & Kelley vs.. the Pacific Express
Company; appeal from Grayson county.
Suit by appellant against appellee com
pany TO recover 8 reward offered for the
arrest Of one Tiller aud his unknown
accomplice who were charged with
having stolen or embezzled & large sum
of money from the appellee. The proc!a-
nation of ring the reward appeared to
be signed by the president and general
manager, and also of the superintendent
of the appellee company. 1t is claimed
by the petition that one McFadden was
H., aR1lfa ND hat he rnlT
rested By appellants, convicted, and sent
to the penitentiary. Also, that after the
arrest the superintendent admitted that
appellee company ought to pay appel
Iants S2500 of the total $4,000
reward offered for both parties.
Verdict for defendant. On the trial, the
plaintiffs proposed to prove the deeI&re
tions, admissions and agreements Of
Fuller, the superintendent, after the ar
rest of said party. This was objected to
on the ground that it hsd not
been shown that Fuller had au
thority to bind defendant company
in this manner. The objection WAS sus-
tanned, and this ruling is assigned as
error. Held: The fact that Fuller WAS
superintendent of the Express company,
and 80 shown to be, was not sufficient to
show his authority to bud the company
by his agreements, admissions and dec
lsrations, his authority being expressly
denied by the defendant. The question
of his authority Wss in issue; the burden
of proving it was upon the plaintiff, and
in the absence of such proof showing
such authority as would bind defendant
company, we are of opinion the court did
not err in refusing TO admit said derlsr-
atoms, etc. The reward was for $4,000
for the arrest Of Tiller and his accomplice.
Appellants claim that they can re-
cover one-hsn the reward for the arrest
Of the accomplice Held: That there could
be no recovery Of one-half or any
part of the reward offered for the arrest
of the two, when, in fact, only one Of the
parties was arrested. The promise is to
payfor the arrest Of two persons. This is
an entire proposition which, when acted
upon By any person, would constitute g
contract single in It's nature and not sub
ject TO apportioDment under rules recog-
nizad wherever the common law is il
force. No error. Affirmed. Stayton, J.
Wyman Blum VS. Benz amin Mcbride !;
appeal from Hopkins. Suit by appellee
to remove cloud from title TO land which
he claims through deed inside to him by
his mother January u, 1884 Appellant
by the sheriff under sales made under
Judgment against E. J. Mcbride, appel
lees mother foreclosing attachment liens.
The debts on which these judgments were
obtained existed at the time of the con-
veyance of E j. Mcbride to appellee, and
appellant claims that the conveyance was
made with the intent to hinder, delay and
defrsud the creditor of his vendor. APP
pellant PRAYED in the court below that he
have Judgment for possession of the
land, for rents, and that the cloud on his
title be removed, which WAS caused by
the deed under which appellee clslmed
Judgment for appellee. II is shown that
appellee vas the bookkeeper, salesman
and business manager of E. J. Mcbride,
his vendor, who had been doing 8 mer-
csntlle business for several years; and
that he was well acquainted with the said
McBride's financial condition. Appellee
testif3 I'd that at the time said deed was
made said E J. Mcbride was indebted in
the sum Of $4,000, and of which cred
itors was appellant. It was also shown
thst the assets of the said Mcbride at
the time of the sale was between $4,000
and $4,000 1t was also shown
that said Mcbride was unable tc
meet deots due at time of sale
Held: It is quite apparent from the fore
going facts that Mrs. Mcbride was in
solvent at the time she made the convey
nnce to appellee, and not only SO in the
fact that she was unable to pay her debts
IS they fell due, but in the further fact
that her assets were insufficient to pay
her debts. Much of this Indebtedness
was part due at the date Of conveyance
and the appellee must have known that
the effect would be to Withdraw the prop
erty from the reach of the vendors cred
itors. In consideration of said land ep-
pellee executed his two pronissory notes
due Janusry and June, 1885. Under
these circumstances it must be held that
this conveyance was entered into to hin.
der and delay, if not to defraud, credit
ors. The Judgment should have been fol
appellant, and the same is reversed and
here rendered in his favor. Reversed
and rendered. Stsyton, j.
Ann Patrick vs, the Commissioner
Court OF Hopkins county; appeal from
Hopkins. This action was brought by
C. NJ. Patrick to compel by writ OF man
damus the commissioners court of Hop.
kins county to psy q certain Judgment